Palin is a birther...

Set your decoder rings to "d." If you guys do not take it easy on you-know-who, you are going to chase you-know-who off--just like you did all the others. Okay. reset your decoder rings to null.

Armon Ayers wrote:Set your decoder rings to "d." If you guys do not take it easy on you-know-who, you are going to chase you-know-who off--just like you did all the others. Okay. reset your decoder rings to null.

If you mean me Armon, I am pretty laid back. I won't be chased off. I respect your opinion on gay marriage Michael.

You might not like the cases I quote Aaron or think they are the wrong ones, but at least I list cases. All I see from you is 'this is what it says and that's it.' That line of reasoning requires little effort or thought. No straws present. But your glass is empty so you don't need one.

It's not whether I like them or not, as I read both and it’s not whether I think they are the wrong links or not. The fact that none support your argument tells me they are not. That is a simple fact that no amount of links will change.

As for me providing sources, with the exception of why the general Welfare clause was inserted in Article 1 Section 8, if I’ve made a specific claim, I’ve inserted a link verifying my position.

Other then that, I’m engaging in general conversation expressing my opinion and as such, I haven’t nor will I provide links to justify my thoughts. This a a forum where we discuss things, express opinons and are pretty informal.

If you don't like that, then don't converse with me but don't tell me I put little effort or thought in my arguments as you have no idea how much I’ve read and studied on which I base my opinions.

You do remind me of a former poster who shared your view on this very issue and in much the same manner you do expected me to provide sources for every opinion I stated. When I posted Wikipedia as a source she stated that wasn't good enough and that she would only accept Britannica as a credible source.

I didn't play that game with Linda Redtail (whom I considered an ignorant, self centered, know it all beatch) and I won't play it here now with you.

And for the record, the case you should have cited was Steward Machine Company v. Davis. That is the case in which the court upheld the unemployment provisions of the Social Security Act and expanded federal spending powers under the general Welfare Clause which ushered in the age of spending that has led to this country facing well over $100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

You could have also cited Helvering v. Davis which found that the Social Security Act wasn't a contributory insurance program and as such, the taxes imposed on employees and their employers was constitutional.

And if you knew what you were talking about, I wouldn’t need to be telling you this 2 days after I first questioned how you reconcile it constitutionally.

Aaron wrote:It's not whether I like them or not, as I read both and it’s not whether I think they are the wrong links or not. The fact that none support your argument tells me they are not. That is a simple fact that no amount of links will change.

As for me providing sources, with the exception of why the general Welfare clause was inserted in Article 1 Section 8, if I’ve made a specific claim, I’ve inserted a link verifying my position.

Other then that, I’m engaging in general conversation expressing my opinion and as such, I haven’t nor will I provide links to justify my thoughts. This a a forum where we discuss things, express opinons and are pretty informal.

If you don't like that, then don't converse with me but don't tell me I put little effort or thought in my arguments as you have no idea how much I’ve read and studied on which I base my opinions.

You do remind me of a former poster who shared your view on this very issue and in much the same manner you do expected me to provide sources for every opinion I stated. When I posted Wikipedia as a source she stated that wasn't good enough and that she would only accept Britannica as a credible source.

I didn't play that game with Linda Redtail (whom I considered an ignorant, self centered, know it all beatch) and I won't play it here now with you.

And for the record, the case you should have cited was Steward Machine Company v. Davis. That is the case in which the court upheld the unemployment provisions of the Social Security Act and expanded federal spending powers under the general Welfare Clause which ushered in the age of spending that has led to this country facing well over $100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

You could have also cited Helvering v. Davis which found that the Social Security Act wasn't a contributory insurance program and as such, the taxes imposed on employees and their employers was constitutional.

And if you knew what you were talking about, I wouldn’t need to be telling you this 2 days after I first questioned how you reconcile it constitutionally.

I'm not Linda whomever she was and I cited what I wanted to cite not what you wanted me to cite. Those aren't the only two cases and the ones I posted do apply. Wikipedia is fine with me and I don't play with people either. You have been the one questioning the legitimacy of sources such as Dauber or should I quote your post? I use sources as reference and will continue to.

I didn't say you were Linda Redtail now did I?

The case you cited, Nebbia v New York IS NOT pertinent to the conversation. Steward Machine Company v Davis and Helvering v Davis are THE cases that gave Social Security constitutional status.

And you're still wrong on both Dauber and Hamilton.

Other then that, well...

Cheers.

Aaron wrote:I didn't say you were Linda Redtail now did I?

The case you cited, Nebbia v New York IS NOT pertinent to the conversation. Steward Machine Company v Davis and Helvering v Davis are THE cases that gave Social Security constitutional status.

And you're still wrong on both Dauber and Hamilton.

Other then that, well...

Cheers.

No. I think this is one of those cases where....never the twain shall meet. Which is also fine with me. So Cheers to you too.

It was never about coming to a common agreement as I've argued with enough of you health care rights people to know that even though you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, you're not going to change your mind.

I just hope in future conversations on one of those other forums, I've taught you enough that you can quote the correct cases and sound credible. At least for a little while.

Aaron wrote:It was never about coming to a common agreement as I've argued with enough of you health care rights people to know that even though you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, you're not going to change your mind.

I just hope in future conversations on one of those other forums, I've taught you enough that you can quote the correct cases and sound credible. At least for a little while.

And I have argued with enough of you 'literalists' to know that the same is true of you. Even though numerous cases have been decided in favor of Congress that create a precedent you will still insist that you're right and all the SCOTUS Justices are wrong. Maybe the day will come when you'll say something other than 'this is what it says' and it won't sound utterly monotonous and dull. I don't know what you believe you taught me, but I don't see anything legitimate.

I'm not sure what a literalist is.

I think you mean originalist.

Once again, you're not sure what you're talking about.

So tell me where I said any justice was wrong.

Aaron wrote:It's not whether I like them or not, as I read both and it’s not whether I think they are the wrong links or not. The fact that none support your argument tells me they are not. That is a simple fact that no amount of links will change.

As for me providing sources, with the exception of why the general Welfare clause was inserted in Article 1 Section 8, if I’ve made a specific claim, I’ve inserted a link verifying my position.

Other then that, I’m engaging in general conversation expressing my opinion and as such, I haven’t nor will I provide links to justify my thoughts. This a a forum where we discuss things, express opinons and are pretty informal.

If you don't like that, then don't converse with me but don't tell me I put little effort or thought in my arguments as you have no idea how much I’ve read and studied on which I base my opinions.

You do remind me of a former poster who shared your view on this very issue and in much the same manner you do expected me to provide sources for every opinion I stated. When I posted Wikipedia as a source she stated that wasn't good enough and that she would only accept Britannica as a credible source.

I didn't play that game with Linda Redtail (whom I considered an ignorant, self centered, know it all beatch) and I won't play it here now with you.

And for the record, the case you should have cited was Steward Machine Company v. Davis. That is the case in which the court upheld the unemployment provisions of the Social Security Act and expanded federal spending powers under the general Welfare Clause which ushered in the age of spending that has led to this country facing well over $100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

You could have also cited Helvering v. Davis which found that the Social Security Act wasn't a contributory insurance program and as such, the taxes imposed on employees and their employers was constitutional.

And if you knew what you were talking about, I wouldn’t need to be telling you this 2 days after I first questioned how you reconcile it constitutionally.

So are you telling me that the justices who decided Steward Machine Company v Davis were right and not wrong then? You used the word 'court'. Court= Justices. No I mean literalist. I know that you call yourself originalists. Literalists is far more fitting.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Set your decoder rings to "d." If you guys do not take it easy on you-know-who, you are going to chase you-know-who off--just like you did all the others. Okay. reset your decoder rings to null.

If you mean me Armon, I am pretty laid back. I won't be chased off. I respect your opinion on gay marriage Michael.

You might not like the cases I quote Aaron or think they are the wrong ones, but at least I list cases. All I see from you is 'this is what it says and that's it.' That line of reasoning requires little effort or thought. No straws present. But your glass is empty so you don't need one.

Hi Andrea,

Fear not. It is obvious that you can take it and dish it out, and we're glad you are here.

Andrea,

I think that SCOTUS has consistently misinterpreted the Constitution, reading into it what they wish were there rather than what it actually says. At the same time, I cannot quite accept Cato's doctrine that if the Constitution does not specifically give a power to Congress than it denies Congress that power.

The reason I hold to that position is that Article One specifically prohibits Congress from doing certain things, including passing ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. If the intention was that whatever was not mentioned was forbidden, I don't see why Article one specifically prohibited things to Congress.

Just going back, I do not think that Congress should be attempting universal health care. I don't see the Constiutional warrant for it, but neither do I see a Constitutional prohibition on it. It is best for Congress to stick to what the Constitution says it should be doing, however, and from the onset (even back to the Alien adn the Sedition Acts) the Congress has been exceeding the role it should have, in my opinion.

But primarily the argument over the Constitution falls on deaf ears. And even if I am right that SCOTUS has misinterpreted the Constitution, it is irrelevant to the facts of the present case--there is just no way that SCOTUS would invalidate universal health insurance as unconstitutional.

The better question is whether it is wise to have universal health insurance, and I believe the answer is no. There is a reason that people come to the US when they have a crisis, and not Canada.

I once heard one of the doctors on NBC (Nancy Schneiderman I think) say that we had islands of terrific health care (such as cancer treatment here in MA) but oceans of inconsistancy in other areas such as preventive medicine. If a way could be found that would allow under private enterprises for every American to have health care and be able to afford it (I think it is obvious to anyone of reason that free market economics has not lowered costs to make it affordable) I would accept that solution rather than a government run option.
But in order for that to occur insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment providers, labratories.....into infinity would need to purge themselves of one of humanity's most offensive character flaws. Greed. Not desire for profit. Profit is not wrong. But I would hold that desire for profit which exludes all else including the well being of your fellow citizens is immoral. If they could settle for a reasonable dividend of return and do what is good and right I would applaud, say KUDOS!!!! and think that was the appropriate result.

There has to be a real financial incentive for enough people to want to be doctors, medical equipment provides, chemists, etc. I do not know the profit margins of health insurance companies, but I would be quite surprised if they were higher than Starbucks or the Gap.

You mention preventive medicine. The lifestyle of the American is your challenge there, not the lack of universal health care. You could make "wellness visits" free and most folks would not take the time to go them. People regularly end up getting surgeries that could easily have been prevented with exercise and therapy. People make bad choices, and preventive medicine only works for the competent and willing.


I might be inclined to agree that greed needs to be taken out of the equation if it weren't for the existence of Medicaid already. If people in need want government help they can almost always get it; even when not, the hospitals and doctors have to serve them in ERs and have to work with them after the fact to reconcile the bill. I am not suggesting that such situations are ideal, but they never will be. I predict that universal health insurance will lead to declining care for the needy, not the other way around.

There already exist free or low cost clinics throughout the country as well. Perhaps more of those could be set up and funded throughout the country by voluntary donations, or even with government funding if necessary, and would be less costly, less bureaucratic, and less intrusive than Obamacare. Granted it does nothing to satisfy the interests of either side, really, so the idea does not stand a chance in hades.

I would be particularly interested in free clinics which had some special protections against malpractice, such that doctors who volunteered there or took a lower rate of pay did not have to fear the sharks in suits.

SheikBen wrote:Andrea,

I think that SCOTUS has consistently misinterpreted the Constitution, reading into it what they wish were there rather than what it actually says. At the same time, I cannot quite accept Cato's doctrine that if the Constitution does not specifically give a power to Congress than it denies Congress that power.

Michael, to wit:

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that:

(Constitutional text):
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Michael, the only way you can provide an excuse for not accepting Cato's doctrine is to accept the current Lefty Liberal doctrine of applying 21st Century word definitations to the wording of 18th Century documents.



.

Sam,

You shoot, you score. I had only been considering Article One, and in light of the 10th amendment, that is the plain reading of it.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:So are you telling me that the justices who decided Steward Machine Company v Davis were right and not wrong then? You used the word 'court'. Court= Justices. No I mean literalist. I know that you call yourself originalists. Literalists is far more fitting.

Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts made their beliefs known and clear between 1930 and 1935 before they ever heard Steward Machine Company and then due to blackmail by the President of the United States of America, they both changed their vote. That is fact that CANNOT be disputed.

So were they wrong when the found the National Recovery Act, The Railroad Retirement Act, a minimum wage act as well as other New Deal programs unconstitutional or were they wrong when they completely reversed course and found social security, minimum wage and other New Deal programs based on many of the same legal premises constitutional after 1937?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:If a way could be found that would allow under private enterprises for every American to have health care and be able to afford it (I think it is obvious to anyone of reason that free market economics has not lowered costs to make it affordable) I would accept that solution rather than a government run option.

What is affordable? What is the maxium amount I should have to pay per month for a premium and what kind of insurance does that get me? Do I have deductibles on doctor visits or just co-pays and what is each? How about deductibles on hospitalization and what is my co-insurance? Does this include vision, dental or both?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in order for that to occur insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment providers, labratories.....into infinity would need to purge themselves of one of humanity's most offensive character flaws. Greed. Not desire for profit. Profit is not wrong. But I would hold that desire for profit which exludes all else including the well being of your fellow citizens is immoral. If they could settle for a reasonable dividend of return and do what is good and right I would applaud, say KUDOS!!!! and think that was the appropriate result.

How is an industry that operates under a ~2.5% average profit margin which is what the health industry has greedy?

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:So are you telling me that the justices who decided Steward Machine Company v Davis were right and not wrong then? You used the word 'court'. Court= Justices. No I mean literalist. I know that you call yourself originalists. Literalists is far more fitting.

Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts made their beliefs known and clear between 1930 and 1935 before they ever heard Steward Machine Company and then due to blackmail by the President of the United States of America, they both changed their vote. That is fact that CANNOT be disputed.

So were they wrong when the found the National Recovery Act, The Railroad Retirement Act, a minimum wage act as well as other New Deal programs unconstitutional or were they wrong when they completely reversed course and found social security, minimum wage and other New Deal programs based on many of the same legal premises constitutional after 1937?

I dispute that any Supreme Court Justice should SUCCUMB to blackmail. If he had one bit of ethics he would have gone to the available media outlets of the time and disputed what was happening to create public outrage. He did not do that. So when was he being honest? When he deliberately, wrongfully decided a case (in your opinion wrongfully) or when he said that he had been blackmailed and decided the case wrongfully? Was he attempting to appease his detractors on the latter portion? He decided as he decided and any argument that he was "blackmailed" is spurious at best. If you look at it carefully, so then it was someone who Shares your politcal beliefs on the Constitution who gave in to blackmail and is responsible for the gigantic spending we have today on the social programs you so disapprove of. Hmmmm.....now what does that say?

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:If a way could be found that would allow under private enterprises for every American to have health care and be able to afford it (I think it is obvious to anyone of reason that free market economics has not lowered costs to make it affordable) I would accept that solution rather than a government run option.

What is affordable? What is the maxium amount I should have to pay per month for a premium and what kind of insurance does that get me? Do I have deductibles on doctor visits or just co-pays and what is each? How about deductibles on hospitalization and what is my co-insurance? Does this include vision, dental or both?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in order for that to occur insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment providers, labratories.....into infinity would need to purge themselves of one of humanity's most offensive character flaws. Greed. Not desire for profit. Profit is not wrong. But I would hold that desire for profit which exludes all else including the well being of your fellow citizens is immoral. If they could settle for a reasonable dividend of return and do what is good and right I would applaud, say KUDOS!!!! and think that was the appropriate result.

How is an industry that operates under a ~2.5% average profit margin which is what the health industry has greedy?

As someone who works with the disabled I have seen that greed first hand and know that it exists. Equipment companies in particular are guilty of this practice. Wheelchairs that are sold as custom when all they are is a conglomeration of available parts. Some of those chairs one parent told me are over 5000 dollars which is ludicrous. Prescription medication that is hundreds of dollars. Drugs like lorazepam cost over 300 dollars for a month's supply. If you truly believe that none of these companies engage in greed.......Did you know that the Brooklyn Bridge is back on the market? I can offer you a good price.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:So are you telling me that the justices who decided Steward Machine Company v Davis were right and not wrong then? You used the word 'court'. Court= Justices. No I mean literalist. I know that you call yourself originalists. Literalists is far more fitting.

Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts made their beliefs known and clear between 1930 and 1935 before they ever heard Steward Machine Company and then due to blackmail by the President of the United States of America, they both changed their vote. That is fact that CANNOT be disputed.

So were they wrong when the found the National Recovery Act, The Railroad Retirement Act, a minimum wage act as well as other New Deal programs unconstitutional or were they wrong when they completely reversed course and found social security, minimum wage and other New Deal programs based on many of the same legal premises constitutional after 1937?

I dispute that any Supreme Court Justice should SUCCUMB to blackmail. If he had one bit of ethics he would have gone to the available media outlets of the time and disputed what was happening to create public outrage. He did not do that. So when was he being honest? When he deliberately, wrongfully decided a case (in your opinion wrongfully) or when he said that he had been blackmailed and decided the case wrongfully? Was he attempting to appease his detractors on the latter portion? He decided as he decided and any argument that he was "blackmailed" is spurious at best. If you look at it carefully, so then it was someone who Shares your politcal beliefs on the Constitution who gave in to blackmail and is responsible for the gigantic spending we have today on the social programs you so disapprove of. Hmmmm.....now what does that say?

You didn't answer the question.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:If a way could be found that would allow under private enterprises for every American to have health care and be able to afford it (I think it is obvious to anyone of reason that free market economics has not lowered costs to make it affordable) I would accept that solution rather than a government run option.

What is affordable? What is the maxium amount I should have to pay per month for a premium and what kind of insurance does that get me? Do I have deductibles on doctor visits or just co-pays and what is each? How about deductibles on hospitalization and what is my co-insurance? Does this include vision, dental or both?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in order for that to occur insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment providers, labratories.....into infinity would need to purge themselves of one of humanity's most offensive character flaws. Greed. Not desire for profit. Profit is not wrong. But I would hold that desire for profit which exludes all else including the well being of your fellow citizens is immoral. If they could settle for a reasonable dividend of return and do what is good and right I would applaud, say KUDOS!!!! and think that was the appropriate result.

How is an industry that operates under a ~2.5% average profit margin which is what the health industry has greedy?

As someone who works with the disabled I have seen that greed first hand and know that it exists. Equipment companies in particular are guilty of this practice. Wheelchairs that are sold as custom when all they are is a conglomeration of available parts. Some of those chairs one parent told me are over 5000 dollars which is ludicrous. Prescription medication that is hundreds of dollars. Drugs like lorazepam cost over 300 dollars for a month's supply. If you truly believe that none of these companies engage in greed.......Did you know that the Brooklyn Bridge is back on the market? I can offer you a good price.

Once again you didn't answer the question. I understand your child is disabled and you are biased so you won't agree that an insurance company operating on 2% profit is not greedy but as you made the statement about affordable, could you at least explain what that is. Or is mindless rants all I can expect from you when I present you with solid facts and legitimate questions?

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:If a way could be found that would allow under private enterprises for every American to have health care and be able to afford it (I think it is obvious to anyone of reason that free market economics has not lowered costs to make it affordable) I would accept that solution rather than a government run option.

What is affordable? What is the maxium amount I should have to pay per month for a premium and what kind of insurance does that get me? Do I have deductibles on doctor visits or just co-pays and what is each? How about deductibles on hospitalization and what is my co-insurance? Does this include vision, dental or both?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in order for that to occur insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical equipment providers, labratories.....into infinity would need to purge themselves of one of humanity's most offensive character flaws. Greed. Not desire for profit. Profit is not wrong. But I would hold that desire for profit which exludes all else including the well being of your fellow citizens is immoral. If they could settle for a reasonable dividend of return and do what is good and right I would applaud, say KUDOS!!!! and think that was the appropriate result.

How is an industry that operates under a ~2.5% average profit margin which is what the health industry has greedy?

As someone who works with the disabled I have seen that greed first hand and know that it exists. Equipment companies in particular are guilty of this practice. Wheelchairs that are sold as custom when all they are is a conglomeration of available parts. Some of those chairs one parent told me are over 5000 dollars which is ludicrous. Prescription medication that is hundreds of dollars. Drugs like lorazepam cost over 300 dollars for a month's supply. If you truly believe that none of these companies engage in greed.......Did you know that the Brooklyn Bridge is back on the market? I can offer you a good price.

Once again you didn't answer the question. I understand your child is disabled and you are biased so you won't agree that an insurance company operating on 2% profit is not greedy but as you made the statement about affordable, could you at least explain what that is. Or is mindless rants all I can expect from you when I present you with solid facts and legitimate questions?

I was speaking of someone else's child Aaron if you read the quote. I am not biased. You stated 2% profit where does that come from? Affordable is different in every area of the country. It is referred to as regional pricing. Tires in MA cost more than in SC. Or probably WV. That is just how it works. Regions would have to set a rate that would be within the income of the residents of that area. As for rants, I'd say that the Rant of the Month award belongs to you. You've been ranting since I joined. I also take note that when you don't like a response, suddenly the question is never answered.

Feel free to dispute the 2% profit margin is you like but you'll fail. It's a fact.

So what's affordabe in MA then? After all, it's your word, not mine.

As for me answering a question, the only one you ask was if I knew the Brooklyn Bridge was on the market. 1) I don't believe it is and B) You don't own it so what other question is there that I haven't answered?

Aaron wrote:Feel free to dispute the 2% profit margin is you like but you'll fail. It's a fact.

So what's affordabe in MA then? After all, it's your word, not mine.

As for me answering a question, the only one you ask was if I knew the Brooklyn Bridge was on the market. 1) I don't believe it is and B) You don't own it so what other question is there that I haven't answered?

The median household income in the part of MA I live in is 65,000 per year. That is not great, but not terrible either. Most people I know who pay for health care pay between 300-400 dollars a month for their insurance. Many of them say that is really not affordable and they struggle to pay it. I would say 250 dollars a month would be affordable for the majority here. Even then for some it wouldn't be easy.

Where did your fact come from. That is a figure. How do I know that you didn't make it up?